Case Title: GR Number / Year:

People v Diaz Gr 186490; Jun 28 2017

Topic: An Act Defining Certain Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial
Investigation as Well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining and Investigating Officers, and
Providing Penalties Therefore (R.A. 7438); Punishable Acts - "Invitations"
Petitioner: Respondent:
People of the Philippines Nilo I. Diaz
Emergency Recit:
Nilo Diaz made an extrajudicial confession detailing his commission of 2 murders. However, Diza
argues that his extrajudicial confession should be inadmissible since it was a result of his illegal arrest
(without warrant), interrogation without counsel, torture, and undue delay in bringing him for
inquest. The records show that Nilo was taken into custody and immediately after was already
questioned about the alleged crimes. Afterwards, he executed the sworn statement (extrajudicial
confession). However, the records do not provide that he was able to confer with a lawyer prior to
executing his sworn statement.

Issue: Whather Nilo’s confession should be admissible as evidence against him? (No)

SC held that the extrajudicial confession in this case is inadmissible because it was obtained in
violation of RA 7438. The law provides that persons arrested, detained, or under custodial
investigation shall be assisted by counsel at all times. In this case, the records did not show that Nilo
was able to confer with a lawyer prior to executing the sworn statement. This is a clear violation of
the rule that extrajudicial confessions must be in writing and signed by the person under custodial
investigation in the presence of his counsel.

Doctrine:
1. Persons arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation shall be assisted by counsel at all
times
2. Extrajudicial confessions must be in writing and signed by the person under custodial
investigation in the presence of his counsel
Facts:
1. The facts are based on Nilo’s own extrajudicial confession:
2. Nilo and Rolando went to Margarito’s house at Better Living Subdivision, Paranaque
a. Margarito was then sleeping on the couch
3. Nilo and Rolando, armed with hammers, struck Margarito – Margarito died
a. To conceal the crime, they chopped the body into parts and then dumped it into the
septic tanks
4. Afterwards, Rolando asked Nilo to drop him off at the airport
a. On the way to the airport, they chanced upon Nelson
b. Nilo alighted the vehicle to talk to Nelson
i. They agreed that they to kill Rolando too
ii. Nelson rode in the vehicle
5. On the way to the airport, Nilo made a turn to CAA Road, Las Pinas
a. When they reached a dark area, Nilo and Nelson took turns stabbing Rolando with a
screwdriver – Rolando died
6. Nilo told Nelson that he would take care of the Rolando’s body
a. Nilo wrapped Rolando’s body in a plastic bag and buried the body at the back portion
of the house
 b. Left it there for 2 months – before returning to retrieve it and throw it into the nearby
river (end of extrajudicial confession)
7. Later, Nilo denied committing the crime
a. Instead he claims that he was detained at the time of the alleged incident
8. Nilo also argued that his extrajudicial confession should be inadmissible evidence
a. Claimed that it was a result of his illegal arrest, interrogation without counsel and
valid waiver, torture, and undue delay in bringing him for inquest
9. Nilo narrated that he was arrested without a warrant and invited him for questioning
a. That he went along with his family to the police station because they were
threatened with harm
b. That at the police state, they were interviewed by the Police and by Mayor Alfredo
Lim (was the host of a television show: Katapat)
i. Nilo confessed the murder to Mayor Lim
10. Wife of Nilo also confided that Nilo killed Margarito with the help of Rolando
a. She however claims that she said this because Nilo was being tortured in front of her
and their son
11. Trial Court: convicted Nilo on account of his confession
a. That Nilo’s lawyer testified that he had properly appraised Nilo of his rights
12. CA: likewise found Nilo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder
a. That the confession was procured in accordance with the law
i. Assisted by counsel
ii. Responses were full, detailed, and informative
iii. No evidence of compulsion, duress, or violence on his person
13. SC held that Nilo’s confession was inadmissible as evidence because he was deprived of the
right to counsel at the begging of the custodial investigation
a. Upheld the conviction of murder because it was affirmed based on pieces of evidence
14. Nilo appealed
Issue/s:
1. (main) Whether Nilo’s extrajudicial confession is admissible as evidence? (No)
2. Whether Nilo is guilty of murder? (Yes)
Held:
1. NO, there was no evidence on record that he was informed of his right to counsel at the time
that he was subjected to questioning at the police station.
a. An extrajudicial confession must conform to the ff in order to be admissible as
evidence against the accused:
i. Voluntary
ii. Made with the assistance of counsel
iii. In writing
b. RA 7438 also requires that any person arrested, detained, or under custodial
investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel
i. Custodial investigation includes the practice of inviting a person who is
investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have
committed
ii. Extrajudicial confession must be in writing and signed by the person under
custodial investigation in the presence of his counsel
c. In this case, the records show that Nilo was taken into custody and immediately after
was already questioned about the death of Margarito
 i. He then executed his sworn statement while in the custody of the arresting
officers without having conferred with any lawyer
d. It is thus clear that Nilo was not informed of his rights under the Constitution when
he was invited to the police headquarters

2. YES, Nilo is still found guilty of murder despite the extrajudicial confession being held
inadmissible by the Court
a. Findings of fact of the TC, especially when affirmed by the CA, are binding and
conclusive
i. Provided there is no clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness, or capriciousness
on the part of the lower courts
b. In this case, both the RTC and the CA did not believe that Nilo was detained at the
Manila City Jail at the time when the 2 crimes happened
c. Furthermore, Nilo was positively identified by witnesses at the scene of the crime